AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Evolution, is it real or bogus?

45 7207
Boomarang66
offline
Boomarang66
12 posts
Nomad

Discuss here your views on evolution, based on my opinion it is fake. (btw, natural selection is NOT evolution)

  • 45 Replies
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Or these: ...


Yeah those are good as well. I liked using the ones I picked since they are false arguments made stating "that's what evolution says". When in fact if any of that actually did happen it would only serve to disprove evolution.
hazelrocks23
offline
hazelrocks23
31 posts
Nomad

on scientific american (or somthing else) i heard that humans may evolve into groteusqe goblin like things. it said that we may live longer than 100 years..

Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,504 posts
Jester

on scientific american (or somthing else) i heard that humans may evolve into groteusqe goblin like things. it said that we may live longer than 100 years..


*chuckles*

1) Cite your claims please!

2) Ain't no freaking way that can happen. Changing from the Gen1 species into Gen2 takes a loooong time. As in tens of thousands of years minimum. Along with a more-flexible interracial relationship system in many nations, if anything, humans would more and more look more alike than grotesque...goblin-like...things... *cough*

3) Humans can already live longer than 100 years. Our average age in the modern generation is becoming more and more towards the 80-90yr. range.
adios194
offline
adios194
818 posts
Nomad

Prove it.

Prove you just wrote that without using this forum... you can't can you?
Sorry but I don't think you understand what evolution and natural selection is.
Also can you tell me how you think humens came to be.

Evolution is changing over time for the better or worse. Natural Selection is a skill used to breed, used to create the best offspring. What do you think they mean? I think God created all life. :P
Well now I'm confused. You have no evidence and I do.

Your fossils don't add up, some are made up, and others don't prove anything.
Technology does not make them strong, it simply keeps them alive.

Yet through the advances in technology multiple characteristics of an ill person can be changed to make them better.
Yes, because the place you are getting information is so credible...

How does this back up your claim?
That label is incorrect.

Please explain what your trying to say.
Modern apes and humans evolved at the same time.

They were alive at the same time. That doesn't clarify your arguement about they evolved from eachother.
Really your going to focus on the half joking over simplification of that sentence? Basically I'm asking for an instance where a plant or animal popped into existence that can be observed, tested and is repeatable.

I am also asking for an instance that you can show me to tell me otherwise.
Have some, show it, have none, shut it.

Exactly.
One of the points with that being if it did happen it wouldn't prove evolution but DISPROVE it. Any of those things on that list would disprove evolution. Offer any of them up and you've done it, you've proven evolution false

If I had a time machine I would, but in the mean time show me a source that isn't an opinion differing with what I stated.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

1) Cite your claims please!


He's talking about Lamarckian evolution theory which has been discredited. I first heard of this through an UFO conspiracy theory site. This drawing was created using the theory.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/future_human.jpg

Oh and sorry for the link being a blog I was having trouble finding something that actually sited the theory.

Your fossils don't add up, some are made up, and others don't prove anything.


Yes there have been fakes but the were proven by science as fakes and discarded as evidence. How do others not prove anything?
We see a steady change from one form to the next, each dating further and further back, found in the geological layer that we would predict to find them in if evolution was true. Each of these steps us methods that are independent of each other yet they all agree on the same thing.

If I had a time machine I would, but in the mean time show me a source that isn't an opinion differing with what I stated.


You stated that the things I listed that would disprove evolution didn't happen. I don't think it has happened either. So what the hell are you talking about?
deserteagle
offline
deserteagle
1,633 posts
Nomad

Prove you just wrote that without using this forum... you can't can you?


dude, I would not be talking if I were you. You have contributed opinions and no evidence to support your claims. Before you rag on someone else, you should provide some **** links. Hypocrite....

I think God created all life. :P


Once again, you tell people to bring evidence when you yourself bring none....

They were alive at the same time. That doesn't clarify your arguement about they evolved from eachother.


Look buddy, stop sleeping in bio and pay attention. I'll put it in simple words for you to understand: Everything evolves. One species may evolve differently than the rest of the same species. Dogs share common wolf DNA, but are drastically different in looks from each other. Chimps a couple million years ago evolved into modern humans and modern chimps. Do you understand?
deserteagle
offline
deserteagle
1,633 posts
Nomad

Read this:

http://www.audiobooksonline.com/media/Darwins-Origin-of-Species-Janet-Browne-unabridged.jpg

7432200
offline
7432200
134 posts
Nomad

EVOLUTION IS REAL NOW STOP BEING SARAH PALIN ABOUT IT!! (no offence to any one that is dumb enough to like Sarah Palin)

WexMajor82
offline
WexMajor82
1,026 posts
Nomad

I think God created all life. :P

And that's your opinion.
You can't neither prove it, nor disprove it. Quite convenient, uhu?
Why it is always scientist to bring evidence and not theists?
Because theist are always shouting: "You can't prove it doesn't exist!"
Then how about bringing some evidence of god?
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Read this:


I'll do one better then just a picture of the book, here's a link with the entire book converted into text. Now you have no excuse but your own laziness not to read it.

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/
Moe
offline
Moe
1,714 posts
Blacksmith

Your fossils don't add up, some are made up, and others don't prove anything.


My fossils do add up, none are made up, and all prove evolution.

Please explain what your trying to say.


Missing link is the wrong term.

They were alive at the same time. That doesn't clarify your arguement about they evolved from eachother.


They didn't evolve from each other, they evolved from a common ancestor at roughly the same time.

Exactly.


Evolution is the one with proof, its all over these forums.
Kragoth
offline
Kragoth
85 posts
Nomad

creation is the way to go. makes more sense to me.


In other words, you can't understand the theory. Or you just like to be told what to do by a book, written by superstisious nuts thousands of years ago.
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

I'll do one better then just a picture of the book, here's a link with the entire book converted into text. Now you have no excuse but your own laziness not to read it.


The theory of evolution as we understand t now is almost entirely different to Darwin's original work due to the new evidence which has been gathered and collated over the years. It's a good starting point, but, you'll find plenty of his assumptions have been proven wrong. His fundamentals of evolutionary mechanics are however, still solid.
Cenere
offline
Cenere
13,657 posts
Jester

I think the lock of this have been delayed long enough.
I have seen a few good arguments and parts of the discussion, but rather it seems like it is much more a "hitting each other with a fish" kind of thread.
Let's take it briefly:
Science has a lot of theories that are constantly verified, but will never actually be proven entirely because we are not able to observe everything, nor can we trust what we observe as it will most likely change when we do so, either because of the lack of objectivity or because the act of observing changes the subject observed.
Telling people that you believe so and so because you do is, and most likely never will, be a proper argument in a scientific or theological argument. Yes, in humaniora you can use the "My opinion is", but this should be followed by "because *reason, information, 'facts'*". Otherwise the reaction will be as has been seen.
The theory of evolution is currently the most verified and generally accepted theory on this subject, and there are few, if none, scientific theories that can get even remotely close to the theory of evolution, which is why it is widely accepted as the truth or part of the truth.
Creationism from a scientific point of view lacks both evidence and verification, thus many will claim it is bogus, and I have yet to see an argument that lets creationism stand alone, as micro evolution happens all around us, and to us.

I think I am done.
Requested lock due to OP being a troll, though I can't see why "I think evolution is fake" is much of a trollish remark when it rather states a fundamental change in how the world is perceived.

Cenere
offline
Cenere
13,657 posts
Jester

Oh, and feel free to make a better formulated thread if you want to continue the discussion in a more civilized and scientific fashion instead of the fish fight.

Showing 31-45 of 45